Commit ce335cee authored by Gabor Greif's avatar Gabor Greif 💬
Browse files

Typos in comments

parent 2d1ecd2b
......@@ -1717,7 +1717,7 @@ or
exceptions or divergence
or
(c) 'x' is used strictly in the body, and 'e' is a variable
Then we can just subtitute 'e' for 'x' in the body.
Then we can just substitute 'e' for 'x' in the body.
See Note [Eliminating redundant seqs]
For (b), the "not used at all" test is important. Consider
......@@ -1744,7 +1744,7 @@ transform
which is might be puzzling if 'x' currently lambda-bound, but later gets
let-bound to (error "good").
Nevertheless, the paper "A semantics for impecise exceptions" allows
Nevertheless, the paper "A semantics for imprecise exceptions" allows
this transformation. If you want to fix the evaluation order, use
'pseq'. See Trac #8900 for an example where the loss of this
transformation bit us in practice.
......
......@@ -1303,7 +1303,7 @@ NB: it is important that the types s1,s2 are flattened and zonked
NB: it's important that the new CIrredCan goes in the inert set rather
than back into the work list. We used to do the latter, but that led
to an infinite loop when we encountered it again, and put it back it
to an infinite loop when we encountered it again, and put it back in
the work list again.
See also Note [Kind orientation for CTyEqCan] and
......
......@@ -495,9 +495,9 @@ This only half-works, but then let-generalisation only half-works.
See note [Simplifying RULE constraints] in TcRule
Note [RULE quanfification over equalities]
Note [RULE quantification over equalities]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Decideing which equalities to quantify over is tricky:
Deciding which equalities to quantify over is tricky:
* We do not want to quantify over insoluble equalities (Int ~ Bool)
(a) because we prefer to report a LHS type error
(b) because if such things end up in 'givens' we get a bogus
......
......@@ -443,8 +443,8 @@ instances is a bit subtle. If we allowed
instance (?x::Int, Eq a) => Foo [a] where ...
then when we saw
(e :: (?x::Int) => t)
it would be unclear how to discharge all the potential usas of the ?x
in e. For example, a constraint Foo [Int] might come out of e,and
it would be unclear how to discharge all the potential uses of the ?x
in e. For example, a constraint Foo [Int] might come out of e, and
applying the instance decl would show up two uses of ?x. Trac #8912.
\begin{code}
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment